Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

These are Polaroid images that include hands and arms. Look how natural and anatomical the hands and arms look.

So, why in the Moorman photo, which is supposed to be a high-quality Polaroid, do we see crap like this?

That does not look photographic, not even by Polaroid standards.

And it isn't just that arm and hand. What about Hargis' hand?

This is supposed to be the original untouched Moorman photo before the thumbprint. I don't believe that for a second, but let's put that aside for now.

Why aren't we seeing Hargis' hand correctly? What's preventing it? Why doesn't it look like a hand? Why does it look more like a hoof?

Why does anyone who knows that Oswald was framed and innocent want to defend this? I said: Why does anyone who knows that Oswald was completely innocent and that the entire case against him was completely fabricated want to defend this? Based on what? You've been looking at photos, including Polaroids, your whole life, and you know they are not supposed to look like this. So, why are you doing it?